Trump's Mile-Hide Club

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. We all promise to digital detox on August vacation, but you can't actually unplug if you're anxiously checking your security camera feeds on your pool side. Simply Safe lets you put the phone down because you know live agents are helping to watch the perimeter on my traditional security systems that only alerts you after a break in as early underway. Simply Safe is designed to help stop intruders before they get inside. Smart AI powered outdoor cameras detect suspicious activity at the perimeter and alert live U.S.-based agents to step in. Simply Safe's agents assess the threat, intervene through the outdoor camera to scare off trespassers and call for 911 dispatch. Our CEO recently had a Simply Safe system installed in her home. The installation was quick and easy and the system was up and running in no time. All of the components have worked smoothly. The app is easy to use. It gives the family total peace of mind to see who's dropping by or you can easily chat with visitors through the camera even when you're away. Simply Safe has been protecting the world for 20 years. Simply Safe has been protecting your world for 20 years. Celebrate your anniversary with us and save 60% on your new Simply Safe system at SimplySafe.com/Cricket. That's 60% off at SimplySafe.com/Cricket. Plus when you order right in our show name, in the how did you hear about a survey to let them know we sent you. Don't forget, there's no Safe. Like Simply Safe. Welcome to Plotsade of America. I'm John Fabra. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Donald Trump catches a ride on a catering truck to escape the Iranians who are trying to kill him and/or cause him to lose the midterms. Whichever comes first. We'll also talk about how your tax dollars are being used to buy brand new gloves for ICE agents that can deliver an electric shock to anyone they touch. That is true. Also, a wild story about DHS spying on everyone from labor unions and climate groups to random citizens, just because they can. Then with the last of the major contested primaries behind us in Wisconsin in Minnesota, we'll talk about why the polling was so far off and why that won't stop us from speculating about November. Finally, we'll bid a fond farewell to White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt and compare our rankings of who we think is most likely to get the job next. Can't wait to hear your list, Dan. It's really outside of the box. I like that. I like that. One quick note before we start, friends of the pod tickets for this year's CrookedCon are going fast. We're going even faster than last time I said they were going fast. By the time you hear this, they could be gone. You're going to want to go to CrookedCon.com to grab yours if you haven't already. Of course, if you're not yet a subscriber discounted CrookedCon tickets, that's just one of many reasons to become a subscriber. You'll also get ad free episodes of all your favorite Crooked shows. Plus, subscriber only shows like Polar Coaster with Dan Pfeiffer. That's the main reason to do it. That is the main reason. For many people. We also have a secret episode of Podsave America, an extra episode that we do behind the paywall. You can check that out as well, terminally online, very funny, and all of our great substack newsletters. You get to be supporting proudly pro-democracy independent media. What are you waiting for? Head to CrookedCon/Friends to join today. All right. They're starting to use the keyword to describe Trump's disastrous war in Iran, with the keyword as Dan. There were all kinds of jokes I was going to make, but none of them seemed to work, so I'm just going to go with the right answer. Is it quagmire? It is quagmire. That's the headline, and one of the most red political stories of the week. The Iran War is a whole new level of quagmire for the U.S. Both Trump and the Iranians are claiming that they're in control of the straight-of-formos, which can't be true. And the straight remains functionally closed, I think only 14 vessels went through yesterday. Most prices are higher than they have ever been at this time of year in the United States ever in history. The war also continues to deplete our military, the Washington Post reports, that we've lost about a quarter of our supply of reaper drones. We're using up our limited supplies of both Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, and some of our service members have been deployed so long that on the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is an aircraft carrier that's been in the Middle East since November, several of the five thousand sailors and Marines on board have tried to jump overboard due to the stress and horrible conditions. That's according to both the military times and stars and stripes. But nothing better illustrates just how badly Trump is getting his ass kicked by the Iranians than the story of how our president was forced to hide in a catering truck and board a secret plane to escape a potential assassination threat involving Iranian proxies in Turkey launching surface-to-air missiles at Air Force One. When Trump was asked why it was too dangerous for him to fly on Air Force One, but not any of the reporters and White House officials who weren't told they were flying home on a potential target, the president said the dumbest thing possible. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they'd be more likely to go for the plane you were on, of course, which is why they tried to put you on another plane that they didn't know about you fucking moron. Yes. I don't know why I say that in such a shocked way, but like that is, it's just like new levels of Trump being a dipshit. Yeah, what did you make of the whole catering cart, Caper? On one hand, it is very, very funny that he hid in a catering cart that he flew home on a secret plane, that he hand picked the people who would survive with him like Pete Hakeseth and the woman who prinsed all of his documents. But he sent-- And Dan Scovito as former caddy. And Dan Scovito, but he's then he sent Marco Rubio to die with the press. And Marco Rubio was the only one on that other plane who knew what was happening. Scott Bessent was with Marco Rubio, none the wiser. And there's no protocol here for the reasons, like maybe Hakeseth you could possibly fabricate some reason. But the fact that he picked Dan Scovino and Natalie Harp, the once again, the woman who follows him around and prints his documents for him, were the ones who got seats in the life raft. And Marco Rubio didn't, it should be a real tell to Marco Rubio. Also, how do you even process information? You get looped in and you're like, "Which way did Trump's plane?" They're like, "You didn't make the cut." I mean, what were they, where did they think Trump was? I mean, they just assumed he was in his cabin, I assume. Oh, yeah. I mean, I know that's what the reporter thought, but I was wondering about the like Scott Bessent who's just sitting there, does has no idea with his buddy, Marco Rubio has no idea he's just a sitting duck for-- Normally, you would see the president walk up, well, I guess they saw him walk up the steps, and there were plenty of times we'd been on the plane when we used to fly on it where the president would just be in their cabin and we would be seated where we would sit, which is not in his cabin, you would have no idea until the plane landed and he did not walk down the front steps. Who do you think was making it in the secret plane with Barack Obama? Definitely wasn't me. I don't know. It might have been you. Well, Crick, I need a speech. Well, also, we would have done it by actual protocol and not by-- Yeah, that's true. That's most-- There is, like, a more serious thing to this, which is that the Iranian proxies in Turkey were potentially going to take down Air Force One. Yeah, that's a-- Well, I mean, that, yes, that, that, but there's something like this probably sounds really quaint in like the dystopian fucked up world we live in, but there is just something terrible about the fact that the president lied to the press, lied to the country to hide a threat to himself. Even newer he was, he could have that plane could have landed anywhere in the world and no one would have ever known. And the only reason we know about this now is because the Washington Post did some really great reporting. Like, there is a world where, obviously, he has secured the president's security, whether his Trump or Nemellis comes first. So you could-- I understand the rules. I don't really understand why you would take Air Force One off. You would just fly the other plane that he-- they don't think he's on. Right. It definitely seemed like there was a need to protect Trump, even if it was-- now we should say, too, since this story was first reported. There's been more reporting that suggests that this intel about a potential assassination plot came from Israel, from the Israeli government, and then the CIA, our CIA, judged it as low confidence, meaning they didn't think it was-- they didn't think it was like a serious serious threat, but clearly they thought it was serious enough to put the president in a catering cart and send him on a separate plane. It's not probably not surprising that Israel's one who told this to Trump, because if you read regime change, the Maggie Hayram and Jonathan Swanbrook, like one of the themes in there-- and Maggie talks about this interview with Ezra Klein a few weeks ago-- is that Trump is secretly obsessed with the idea that Iran wants to kill him? And so you tell Trump Iran wants to kill you, at the same time, you're trying to keep Trump fully focused on the war in Iran. Right. It's not a bad idea. That yeah, BB did not want him to reach any kind of peace agreement, clearly. So, yeah, I thought it was-- I thought it was-- so it's wild to me that, like, it's one thing to protect the president. It's another thing to unnecessarily put the rest of the people on Air Force 1. in danger. Yeah, you just hold their first one on the ground. You take the president, let him fly on this other plane. No one knows what is. Right. And then after he lands, you say Trump has landed the Iranians know he's on the plane. Then you fly the other plane home. Right. And we're not in the CIA. We're not in secret servers to the CIA. You know, we could figure that out. Yeah, it's, I mean, it's, it's crazy. It's also crazy. They didn't tell anyone afterwards. Like, that's also nice. That's the, well, yes, thank you. That, that is the biggest problem. Like, you could do this whole thing. And then once everyone lands, be like, oh, by the way, this happened. And we couldn't tell you at the time or whatever, but like, that is, it's wild that it had to be broken by the Washington Post. And that the administration subpoenaed New York Times reporters for the leak about them not taking the new Qatari force one home, because it didn't have like the right defensive maneuver capabilities that they might need if, if proxies on the ground were shooting surface air missiles at Air Force One. Like, this is entirely a hypothetical. Just want to point this out there. Uh-oh. But in a world in which, uh, oh, oh, it's right. In a world in which the president can get on a secret plane without the press and have no one over. He is that plane can land anywhere. It could land on Epstein Island theoretically. Oh my god. Oh, you really looking for a viral clip, aren't you? I'm, I do not want a viral clip. I do not want this posted. I do not. Tell the society about it. I want this posted. I make a point just to our listeners, the people who tune into this podcast that I'm just using the extreme example to make a point that if the press is not with the president, the president can do lots of things. We don't know what are. He could have stopped in UAE and cut a crypto deal. He could have, he could have stopped in Moscow to hang out with his friend, Vladimir P. He could, he could have picked up the p tape. He could have picked up the p tape, right? Yeah. A lot of these things were possible, a lot of positive protocols. Okay. Well, bigger picture. There's new reporting this week that Iran is tracking Trump's political problems very closely. I guess they're just, they're looking at the, looking at the RCP average, so the silver bullet's in Trump approval rating. And they're looking to continue pushing negotiations far off past November, so that the, so that Trump pays a maximum price in the midterms. Seems like a, if we're just going by political strategy, it does seem like a smart strategy on, on Iran's behalf, no, on Iran's part. Yeah. I mean, there's no question that they are correct to understand that Trump has very, very little leverage during election season because the things that would allow the sort of military maneuvers that would allow him to gain an upper hand over the street over Iran would raise gas prices in a way, which would hurt his party in the midterms. So that they figured that out. Now, I think the question for Iran is what happens when Trump doesn't, and no one Trump cares about, has to face the voters for two years. Like, if you're counting on Democrats to pass a war powers resolution to stop the war, I don't think they're getting to evite a proof majority of that. No, could a Democratic Congress make it harder to fund the war? Possibly, but this idea, but Trump may feel like this is bad. I'm going to say this is bad, but it's not clear to me that Trump, well, it's not clear to me, and maybe it's probably shouldn't be clear the Iranians. What Trump does after the midterms? Well, after, let's talk about what's after the midterms. It is the beginning of the 2028 presidential race. And you've got, presumably, JD Vance, who wants to be president, maybe Marco Rubio, maybe both of them together. And so there is an incentive at that point for the administration to finally give Iranians what they want to get this off the table so that they don't have it. Or win the war. Or win, well, how they're going to be that? Well, I mean, that's ultimately what Iran is trying to forestall right now is more like not that I think the end of these things are going to happen per se, but like Trump taking carg island, for instance, one of the things that was on the table earlier doesn't happen in the midterms. Could that happen in 2027? Maybe. Trump launching all the other bombing. Yeah, like those sorts of things like the right now Trump won't use the military stick against Iran to the extent he has the keep the capacity to do so because of gas prices election in the calendar year of 2027. He is relieved of that political, the restraining nature of politics potentially. So I don't think it's I don't know when Iran doesn't know either. So like this works in the short term. What happens in the midterms long term? Who the hell knows? Yeah. Horrible story though about the I'm Jesus Christ to USS Lincoln and all those soldiers and, you know, the families have been describing like moldy showers and broken toilets and shortages of hot water and food. They've been trying to like figure this out to these the sailors and Marines have been sending messages like just to end. And of course someone asked Pete Higgseth today about it. And he's like, oh, it's all overblown, overblown. I respect all these guys. They're great. They're doing a great job. It always makes me feel bad that we talk about the war purely in terms of gas prices and oil prices because of the effect that it's having on politics here. But it's also like there's a lot of fucking US forces deployed in the Middle East who are in harm's way and who are also just have been away from their families forever and for what? For what? And the military did not prepare for this hence the conditions on the ships. Yeah. Because they had never believed because they gave this zero thought that many, many months later they'd still be in a conflict with Iran. Missile stockpile estimates are that it won't recover until 2030. That's a whole another thing like God forbid. Someone else attacks us. There's another war like we're not going to be ready at all because we have now depleted all of our military. We've sent soldiers for long, long deployments. We don't have missiles and drones and all that kind of all those capabilities because of this stupid fucking war. It is a like I kind of think that this is what do you think about like Democrats like how they handle this over the next couple of months between now and the midterms? Because to me it seems like it is the main issue and it's not your use. It's like it combines both forever wars which people hate and it's causing high prices which people hate. So it's like I feel like the whole you could run the whole campaign about Trump's disastrous war and what it's doing to prices and all that. Yeah, it should be the centerpiece of the campaign. It's obviously it's best when tied to affordability gas prices and that you know like one of the message I've seen tested is the you know they told us there was enough money for healthcare and food assistance but now we have we have billions of dollars for bombs in the Middle East and for wars and billies like that tests very well. It is you know so I think absolutely hammer it. Democrats should have no fear. There's a lot of sort of anxiety at the outset of this that what if we get on the wrong side of the conflict and you know we and we must begin every statement with a long throat clearing about how bad the mules and around are like we don't like we're past that. This is an incredibly unpopular war. It goes at affordability. It goes at Trump's incompetence. It goes at Trump's weakness. It goes to the chaos of his leadership style and I think really importantly it goes to the broken promises and when you at you see this in both focus groups and then in polling of people who regret who voted for Trump who are now disapprove of him. One of the top things that comes up is that he broke his promises and one of those big promises is the war which is tied to the other big promise which is lowering prices. Right. Today's show is sponsored by Strabbery.me. Have you ever written a review about a product or service you've used? It takes an extraordinary experience either overwhelmingly positive or deeply disappointing for someone to take the time to write a review. Strabbery.me's positive reviews speak for themselves proving why professionals rely on the platform for certified career coaching. Not just a few reviews there are literally hundreds of them at Strabbery.me/reviews all unfiltered and glowing. Here's a sample review from a Strabbery.me client. Christa is an incredible thoughtful positive coach. She helped me build my confidence and voice back up, revise my resume, navigate an industry change and become more intentional in my job search. Highly recommend. Review after review tells the same story. My coach was amazing. The experience was transformative and I landed a new job within weeks. When so many people take the time to leave positive reviews it is clear the product is something special. So if your feelings stuck at work do what tens of thousands of people have already done. Go to Strabbery.me/cricket and claim 50% off your first coaching session that's Strabbery.me/cricket. I'd say America is brought to you by Sunday's. Is your dog a picky eater? It's surprisingly stressful. You wish they could tell you the problem. Maybe if they could your dog would say they know the difference between processed brown pellets and real food. Sunday starts with 80% plus all natural meats and then adds super foods like kale, ginger and blueberries, no filler, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. And even if your dog doesn't know why they don't like their food because they're a dog that would eat cheese out of a diaper. You still want them to have good quality food as well. And Sundays just launched a brand new fish recipe. It's made with 80% whole and minced fish, including eco-friendly invasive carp source from America's rivers for a naturally rich flavor. In fact, do you know that many dogs naturally prefer fish flavors? Especially carp. Yeah, they love that. They love that. Is that carp? Is that carp? Is that invasive carp? Is this carp that was jumping into people's boats in Michigan? I love it. Plus it's packed with omega-3 fatty acids. It helps support healthy skins, shiny coats, joints and brain function. It's complete and balanced nutrition for all life stages. I sprinkled it on my own dinner. Share your dogs experience with the fluid. They loved it. I think it's hard to tell, but she ate it. She's a dog. Leo loves it. Leo loves Sundays for dogs, eats it right down. Boy, it does. His coat looks shinier. Shiny as hell. Sort of reflected the light because it blocked your eyes. Make the swish of Sundays. Go right now to sundaysforddogs.com/cricket to get 50% of your first order, or you can use the code cricket to check out. That's 50% of your first order at sundaysforddogs.com/cricket, sundaysforddogs.com/cricket, or use code cricket at checkout. Speaking of unpopular, we haven't checked in on ice in a while, and it won't shock you to hear that the news is really bad. Here's what will shock you. I apologize for that. That's just funny. Well, do the joke and then apologize. The new electric gloves ice plans to spend $20 million on. So that agents can deliver a painful jolt to whoever they touch, rendering the person powerless to move or even stand. Now, Tom Homan, he was on Fox talking about this, we don't want to shoot everyone now, so this is supposed to be de-escalation. This is a de-escalation, right? Here's a compilation of the gloves being put to use from some of the videos that were circulating on Twitter. That's green like a little girl and pee myself, go back with your gloves. We're trying to get his hands off. Fucking insane. A bunch of men just shocking each other for fun. I know. Yeah. Right. Yeah. That's a whole separate conversation. The manual, that this company that makes the product that they put out, the manual says no more than two gloves on one person, generally no more than 15 seconds, never against verbal defiance, never as punishment, and not on the elderly children, pregnant women or people with serious disabilities. Guess what ice has done already, like violated all of those things with how it has handled people before the gloves, and the people that it has assaulted, injured, detained. And so, I don't know, I think this is fucking awful. Well, I mean, it's just so ridiculous that Tom Homan's, he's like, it's a binary choice. Well, look, we have only two options. We can kill them in the street with our guns, or we can electrocute them. Those are the only two things, guys. You pick. You choose electrocution or bullets. Also, this is one that leaves not a lot of evidence, and so the idea that ice is just going to be roaming the streets. And if they see someone who, they don't like what they said, they, you know, sort of made fun of ice, or criticize them whatever, they can just walk over and just put hands on them and chalk them. And then like, no one's going to know, I mean, like who's worried against who's worried, I mean, it's just, it's the potential for abuse on this one is vast. Yes, that is very, very true. And as Elijah pointed out of production meeting today, it's only a matter of time until one of these ice guys goes pee with the gloves on. In this administration, that will almost certainly happen. Yes. It's guaranteed. And also with the kind of people they're recruiting now with ice is people who meet no standards, whatsoever. Yes. Meanwhile, there's been a new uptick in terrifying videos of people being confronted by ice agents. On Monday, a masked agent pointed a gun at a US citizen named Carolina Molina at a shopping center in Virginia, ice and DHS accused her of trying to run them over with her car, an assertion that's not at all backed up by the video evidence. Afterwards, Molina told the Washington Post that it felt like a Renee Good situation. Here's some of that seen as well as other recent ice confrontations that are making the rounds. You on those ranas over. I didn't. Stop playing. Stop playing. You are a full of shit. All right. You're not funny. You're not funny. I will arrest you. Keep it up. Oh, my goodness, keep it up. The Domingo family self-recording the tense moments when border patrol pulled them over Sunday afternoon. The couple, complying with the officer's orders, then hugging during this emotional goodbye when separated from their five children and detained. I know there's like not a lot of new things to say about this because it's just horrific, but I think it is worth noting that it is still happening. It is happening all over the place. Ice has not deescalated at all. They are still trying to meet Stephen Miller's dumb fucking quotas. Mark Wayne Mullen, the new DHS secretary, is already in trouble with like, maga activists and the base, you know, Laura Lumer and Steve Bannon already have said he should be fired because, you know, he's not detaining and arresting and deporting enough people. So he's already feeling pressure to be even more aggressive in order to keep his job. So this is all happening still. Yeah. And it's just the only thing that's changed is they're not sitting on a press release before they do it. Right. They're not inviting. They're not inviting the mag influencers along for it. They're not inviting the Fox News crews. They're just doing it and hoping no one videotapes them when it happens. Did you see, I heard Tim Miller talk about this in the bulwark pod. The letter in the nation that this woman wrote, she is, so this is Iranian family. They have green cards, legal residents, a couple of professors. Yeah. The husband and wife are professors and then they have a child as well. And because the husband is the son of a woman who was an Iranian official during the hostage crisis. A spokesperson during the hostage crisis in 1979 and her son and his family moved to the United States became college professors had a kid are permanent legal residents. And because like people online decided to make an issue of their association with Iran, then the State Department just decided to on their own revoke their visas. They picked up the husband, they also picked up the wife and the child and they separated them and they have shipped them to Texas where they've been in detention facilities for the last four months, four months with like just just just holding them, holding them hostage for no reason. No due process, not even deporting them, not doing anything, just jailing them just because of an association, a family member, because some fucking idiot online decided to call them up. It's terrible. It's just the whole thing is so just gross and morally bankrupt. I don't like, I get that this won't be, you know, I think when Minnesota is happening, we probably thought maybe this would be a big issue in the midterms. I'm guessing it will not be as big of an issue in the midterms. But is the best play here, the Democrats have to just hope we get Congress back, be able to conduct some kind of oversight, over ice and hold hearings, subpoena officials and documents, and then just change everything if a Democratic president wins, like it doesn't, what else can people do at this point? So you are right that this is not going to be the biggest issue in the midterms and it probably shouldn't be the voters we need. Care about immigration, they absolutely do, but it's not their top issue. But it's not as complicated as I think a lot of people make it. Trump is 11 points under water on immigration right now. This is not an issue of strength for him. He doesn't win by shifting the issue to reign to immigration. It doesn't help him. The videos like this hurt him when you track his approval rating drops since 2025. Some of the biggest ones happened during both first, the Kilmar or Braco Garcia, Seacot stuff in the spring of 2025, and then after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in January of 2026. So it matters when these things come up. So we don't want to shy away from talking about it. Absolutely not. It's also worth pointing out to voters that once again, not only is ice bad, but we gave I $700 billion and we paid for it by cutting healthcare and food assistance, like that's what the priority is. People don't like that. But when we, but so let's say we get to, we get a majority, right, and we'll talk about the prospects for that later in the show. People should be realistic. We cannot, we cannot realistically abolish ice, but we can hold hearings. We can shine a light on this. There can be accountability. We also have, if we have the House and the Senate, but even if we have just the House, we have real leverage in budget negotiations of Democrats are willing to use it. So the one challenge on that one is because they passed so much ice funding through reconciliation, like they could shut down the government, like we went through this, right? Like the Democrats could theoretically shut down the government if we control Congress again or hold up the whole budget over ice funding, but because they have so much funding left over from reconciliation, like they can still do everything they want to do. Yes, I mean, we're right back in the same spot, but you can, you're a couple of options here. One is you can take, I hate to use this terminology, but you can take a different hostage and the ransom is changes in ice. Other things Trump's want. You can not get them. You can shut down the whole government over. it. You can put real pressure on them. Once again, ice has money. Like there is a limit to what you can do here. Up until the moment you have a trifecta where you, well, if we have a trifecta, you can do the following things. One, you can take that money and redirect it elsewhere. You could with a trifecta abolish ice in some way, shape or form. Oh, yeah. Yeah. If we have a democratic president, then you do all those things. But yes, but for the next, it'll be even winning back Congress. It'll be hard for the next two years to do anything outside of threatening to shut down the government over, over ice. But, you know, like you said, take a different hostage or probably the most likely path is to hold all kinds of hearings and oversight. And you can get, I mean, which, which will hopefully sort of till the ground for the battles to come when you have the trifecta, but you can't, like some of the policy changes we did not get in this time, you can make another run at, um, in 2027, 2028. I also think it's worth saying that just from a, when we talk about politics and campaigns and what's most likely to help win an election, but when these stories are in the news and when public officials, whether they're local, state or national, uh, talk about them and lift up the stories, like the politics are bad for the Trump administration. Usually when they are, uh, when Donald Trump's approval rating is in the shitter, uh, he turns to immigration to try to get his mojo back. And it is telling that they have chosen, uh, you know, the democratic socialist communist threat over immigration this time around, because they just went through a cycle back. I don't know when it was earlier this year, last year, when, um, their immigration agenda was underwater and became pretty unpopular, not as unpopular as how he handles cost of living or jobs or any, or the around war, but still unpopular. Yeah, it's not, it's not an advantage for him anymore, which is a huge change in the huge change. Yeah. All right. Uh, this week's democratic primaries were one of the last contests before the midterms, uh, a week after Abdul al-Sahead defeated the establishment backed Haley Stevens by just under a point in the Michigan Senate primary, the more moderate David Crowley eaked out an upset over democratic socialist Francesca Hong and the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary in Minnesota, the more progressive lieutenant governor Peggy Flanagan beat congresswoman Angie Craig by 20 points. In Connecticut, the center left mayor of Hartford, Luke Bronan knocked off 78 year old congressman John Larson, uh, making him, making Larson the seventh house Democrat to lose a primary this year and the fifth past his retirement age. 2026 is now tied with 2012 is the worst year for democratic incumbents in primaries this century. When you step back and squinted all the primary results this year, do they tell to you any kind of cohesive story about democratic voters and the democratic party? It's complicated, but yes. Um, if you look at all the results, all the ones we've had, all of the, the DSA wins, the incumbents who got elected, the incumbents who got defeated, I think you can take a couple of thanks from this one. Democrats are furious that Donald Trump is president. Two, Democrats are incredibly skeptical and distrust ful of their own leaders, their own institutions and the way the party has done politics in the past. Democrats are incredibly fired up about voting. They are turning out in huge numbers like in Wisconsin. This is a, this statistic blew me away. Nearly 250,000 more people voted in this Wisconsin primary than in 2018, the year of the big blue wave. I know that's wild. Now, what I think is when you look at all of this, it's sort of belies the overly simplistic narratives that people who talk about politics will have been trying to GM this through. DSA versus centrists, left first right institution, versus anti-institution, even generational. Like it's a lot of these races. And the thing is the Wisconsin and Michigan races come by, if 18,000 votes between the two of them had gone a different way, we would have been like, DSA is dead, long live the moderates or DIA or like go comrade, the did it socialists of one. And it's, and it's, it's all more complicated. Voters looked at it and made decisions. There were some local factors in all of them. I think the one thing that is true is that voters are looking for fresh faces. And those fresh faces are often younger. And we are, we saw that in all the income that you mentioned, it is a fresh face who has come in and beat them in almost always a younger one. And, you know, and I think that that like democratic voters are done with the Jarentocracy. To your point about how many more voters are participating in this year's primaries versus 2018 or at least in Wisconsin. Is part of that that people who usually just vote in a general election, but not a primary are now voting in a primary. I thought I saw somewhere that like just the interest is so high that even a lot of normy Democrats quote unquote who usually just turned out in a general, but not a primary are now like interested enough and engaged enough that they want to participate in the primary. Yes, that's definitely happening. Wisconsin is particularly impressive. You have to run out because Wisconsin is one of the highest turnout states in the country. But yeah, I think the stakes of these primaries feel very high to people because I think there is a real question about where our party is going. And people want to have a say in that. So they are turning out. And it, like it does, it felt that way. Wisconsin felt that way. And Michigan in these races, it's only I think that to the people in New York city in those races or in the Colorado one, it felt that way where it's like our party is going to go one of two ways. And I want to have a say in which way it goes because the direction we choose is going to matter not just in the 2026, but in 2028 beyond. Pots of America is brought to by zippercruiter with everyday interactions becoming increasingly impersonal. Someone going just one extra step can be huge. Like when my doctor takes the time to call me with test results instead of sending them electronically. You're gay. This just came in, John, you're gay. Then he hangs up. It makes me feel like a human being again. If you're hiring great candidates can also go the extra step and tell you why they're interested in your job on zippercruiter is a way to stand out from the others in the pool. And right now you can try it for free at zippercruiter.com/crickets. Zippercruiter's new feature shows you the most interested qualified candidates. First, so you meet the right people faster. Their powerful matching technology finds qualified candidates quickly candidates tell you in their own words why they're interested in your job. We've used zippercruiter here at Cricut. You bet we have. Boy do those interested qualified candidates jump to the front of the line. You bet they do really helps. Try zippercruiter and meet great candidates who will go the extra step for your job. Four out of five employers who post on zippercruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. Try it for free today at zippercruiter.com/cricut. That's zippercruiter.com/cricut. Zippercruiter meet your match on zippercruiter. Podsave America is brought to you by Bombas. Summer's coming to an end. So we're soaking up every outdoor moment we can. You can get to go to the beach, get our backyard barbecues, you're going on runs, you're just being outside in the nice weather. Bombas makes your compass footwear staples. So you can enjoy the end of summer and the transition to fall. You might be thinking, what's a comfy footwear staple? Socks. They've got a whole line of socks. They've got a whole line of pro level sports specific size. You got to have the socks of a pro. You don't want to be wearing these amateur socks out there for golf, for yoga, the gym. I wear bombas every day. I wear them whenever I go to the gym. I always wear their athletic socks. They are the absolute best. I love them. They come in great vintage patterns that I'm a huge fan of. Plus their area and sweat-weaking. So your feet will feel as good at the end of the day as they did at the start. Also, bombas make sandals and slides from the super lightweight cushy waterproof EVA foam. It's like walking on marshmallows or clouds. If you're into that sort of thing, I have the EVA Friday slides. I genuinely love them. I wear them basically every day. I wear them when I take punted out for a quick walk at the end of the day. I wear them when I go to Pilates. I'm a huge fan. And for an I wear them on vacation. For every item you purchase, an essential clothing item is donated to someone facing, housing and security. One purchase equals one donated with over 200 million donations and counting. I've already told you why I love bombas. Just go f**k by some. Bombas.com/cricket. Use code "cricket" for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-O-M-B-A-S.com/cricket code "cricket" at checkout. So on that note, the primary results have inevitably led to another round of electability first. Easily one of the top five discourses in the Democratic Party. What else is on the list? Let's see. Motivation versus persuasion. Left versus center left. Let's see. Orange man bad is the best political strategy. Is that a discourse? How much should we focus on Trump? Right. Wokeness. That's kind of a relatively new one. I don't know. I'm just kind of shooting from the hip here. How are Democratic voters judging? Which candidate is more electable here in 2026 based on everything that you have seen thus far this year? I think like the pundits of voters don't know who's more electable and that is showing up at these races as people are making different choices. What I think is interesting is electability. There's been this big discussion. In the Trump era of Democratic voters care a lot about electability and that is true. But it's also always been true. And it is also an axiomatic thing, which is you want you want someone who can win or do you want someone who is less likely to win but agrees with you? People always pick the one who's going to win. You know, even look at the even before Trump in 2004, when that the Democratic primary that you were working on was going forward, people all the sudden were like, wait a minute, we're going to run the anti-war governor of Vermont against George W. Bush. That's not a good idea. And then they immediately shifted to John Kerry, the war hero did work out great, but you understand the thinking that got them there in 2020, electability drove Biden's nomination. Six and 10 voters in a gallup poll at that time so they'd rather have someone who was more likely to beat Trump than someone who they agreed with on policy issues. In the exit polls of the primary states, six and 10 voters in most cases said electability was their top issue. People care about it. What is different now? And I believe you see this in both Wisconsin and Michigan is that the voters no longer trust the Democratic Party establishment and the experts to tell them who is most electable and they have to see it with their own eyes and make their own judgment because you haven't missed it. Unless it's Tony Evers. Well, I mean, I think we can debate Tony Evers. Tony Evers obviously played a huge role in this, but this is the difference between Michigan and Wisconsin is all of the voices were saying Abdul is less electable. Voters looked at that race. They looked at him. It was not patently obvious to him to meant to enough of them that he was less electable than Hillary Stevens. Wisconsin. Evers made electability number one issue down the stretch by announcing that he thought Hong could not win or was unlikely to win if she was the nominee, but then Hong went on a media tour where she did not acquit herself great and sort of amplify the questions that Evers had raised and Voters looked at that. I think if Evers had said she can't win and then she had done fine, they probably would have still picked Hong. But because of that, enough of people changed their mind in the final days to do it. And then in Minnesota where Angie Craig made electability of the centerpiece of issue, no one thought we would lose that seat so they didn't care. I think that's a really important point that's getting lost in the Minnesota example because I think a lot of voters, especially highly engaged voters who pay attention to this, who are the voters that vote in primaries, they try to make rational decisions about who they think is going to win the race. If you're in a state like Minnesota where it just seems like the Democrat is going to win and now Minnesota is not like a deep blue state, but you could make a good argument that Angie Craig or Peggy Flanagan, whoever won that nomination, was going to yes, it was going to be a heavy favorite, right? Like a likely DC. And so in that scenario as a voter, you look at the choices and you're like, well, now I am free to just support whoever I want to support that I believe in the most. And Peggy Flanagan wins by 20 points. And in Wisconsin, you have to imagine there were a bunch of Francesca, people who really liked Francesca Hong and probably agreed with her more on the issues or found her campaign more inspiring or whatever it may be than David Crowley, but looked around, looked at polls, looked at her performances, maybe looked at their governor that they like very much, even though he's older in establishment and said, you know what? Can't do it. Can't do it. It's too important to win this day. And that seems to me like I, I know everyone always says like, like, stability is all subjective and it doesn't matter, but like I do think there have to be some sort of objective standards by which to judge electability that I think voters are trying to sort of figure out on their own. There are, I think the way I like to think about it is no one knows for sure who is flexible and who isn't. And the political environment is much more important than the quality of any individual candidate. But there are things we can look at that give us an idea on people's electability. One of which is how they hit, what is their history of winning tough races? Do they have, is their actual evidence of them winning ever swing voters? This is quantified by split ticket and their wins over replacement model. But you can just, like we know that Andy Beshear and Josh Shapiro can win over Republican voters. They have proven that on multiple occasions. Do we know that Gavin Newsom or AOC can do it? We do not know that. Can they maybe, but they've never proven it before. So that's an untested proposition. We should say, because it's actually very useful for people, I think, is the wins above replacement sort of calculation. Basically, what split ticket has done is, and other people have done similar, but what they've done is they come up with like a baseline, right? So if like the baseline, how would a generic Democrat do? Right. How would a generic Democrat do? So what was like the national sort of, was the national house vote? And they put a whole bunch of factors into it. And so if a, if a regular Democrat, if a generic Democrat would win this race by two points and X candidate wins it by four points, then there plus two win above replacement. If the other Democrat still wins the race, but only wins it by one point, then there minus one wins above replacement. And you can do this with all the different House candidates and all the different. Now what was interesting in the case of Michigan is, first of all, a dual had run once for governor and lost. So he didn't have a primary. So he didn't have a long record there. Haley Stevens was sort of the lowest wins above average of any of the Democrats in the House in Michigan, which I hadn't realized. So in that scenario, you actually didn't have, like it seemed like Haley Stevens was like, because she was more moderate and backed by the establishment, like maybe it's thinks she was more electable. But in terms of the, the objective measures you had, that wasn't necessarily the case. Sure enough, the argument, which is, you know, Lactia Jane who's the pollster for the argument and does the, and also is split ticket does the wins above replacement. He said that they had in their model, if they have a dual is a 70% chance of winning the general, and Haley Stevens would have been 80% chance. So it's like 10% difference is it's something, but it's not. It's big. It's actually, we can, it's between 70 and 80 doesn't feel huge, difference between 50 and 40 feels quite big. Would you get there? Well, but that I think that's my point. That gets you the other measures, which not the, then you get past data, right? And so then there is the question of extremism. And it is a, there is, it's not always true, but it is mostly true that the candidate who is seen as more extreme loses. This is the thing that always makes people want to throw their phone in the ocean, but Donald Trump was seen as more moderate than Kamala Harris in 2024. And Joe Biden was seen as more moderate than Donald Trump in 2020. And so you look at that and you say, does that do, like, if you take Michigan, for instance, you would say, does that dual have positions and statements that could be used to make him see more extreme than Haley Stevens? Possibly. Yeah. I think that's probably where you get to this, that, that net difference for them. Then the third thing is candidate quality. And this is all subjective. Where you're like, does this person seem like they can stand? This is going to be particularly true in a presidential debate. Can the presidential election, can they stand on the stage with JD Vance or Marco Rubio or Tucker Carlson or ever else and like hold their own? Do they, can they go on podcasts? Can they give a good speech? Can they do those things? And that I think is where Abdul seemed like he could, like he really showed a lot of candidate skill. And Haley just ran a campaign in the end that where she was is not very present in the media. So people didn't see her. Although I would say she, her post election media tour, she has crushed. Yeah. And then Hong went on this huge media tour, did every interview seemed ill-prepared for a lot of them. And that people saw that with the Roni. So it's like, yes, Eva said that. But then everyone actually saw clips that made them say, maybe this person cannot win or is less likely to win. Well, that's what she was like. Yeah, it's subjective. And no one really knows who's electable or not is technically true. But all of this exists on a spectrum. And there are some people where you're like, who's the more electable candidate? Well, they're both kind of good on TV. And sometimes they make mistakes. But one's inspiring for this reason. And they're like, that's a close call. With like, when Francesca Hong goes on TV and is like, well, let's have to have to talk about canceling Thanksgiving and and why, you know, police exist to uphold white supremacy. Most people, most people who don't pay attention to politics, if you, if you showed them that clip, they'd be like, yeah, that's weird. No, thank you. So like, that's, that's an easier or or let's take another example. The Biden Trump debate, right? And Biden does perform so horribly that afterwards, it's like, okay, yeah, there's, there's like nitpicky debate, you know, figure skating judge quality to analyzing debates. But that's an easy call. Most, most people would be like, that's awful. Right. See, these are extreme examples. But the problem is it gets harder. Like, it was where we get to the presidential election. Right. And so imagine you're down to at the end. I'm just picking these sort of randomly. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, uh, AOC. Like they're all. That's a tough one. Yeah. See, they're all like, you can make a case for all of them. And then it gets more subjective. And then the thing that I think is important to note, and this is like a huge problem in 2020, is the electability discourse is very racially and gender coded. And there's just like, there is, there's a particularly true in 2020, where it's just, we feel The election through the mind of a white dude in Wisconsin and like who do they want and people but you you hear this in focus groups all the time People project on to voters. They do not know biases. It's like Kama Thera's did with people to judge is the VP Right, you say well he's a gay man. That's too much for America Yeah, and that's like that very and the end of that and if you take that but if you take that you never like you would have said Brock who say Obama too much for America. They're like it's just It is it's just it I think the discourse is there are some things you can look at the real there are some things that makes it very quite complicated and And certainly and can narrow the aperture of what you're looking for Abs that you're not even doing it up based on data. You're doing it awesome of Perceived biases to the electorate or small sample sizes of women losing presidential elections Sometimes I think we confuse in the electability discourse the very real perceived biases in the elect in the in the electorate, right? And the fact that a lot of this electability discourse is absolutely gender and racially coded with Okay, but that's that is true That is how people think and what is a candidate in the campaign do to overcome that so yes People thought that Barack Obama was couldn't be president because we're how are we going to elect a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama from Chicago as president of the United States when we just lost with the war hero against George W. Bush and And even black voters in South Carolina at the beginning of the campaign did not think that Barack Obama was ready to become president So what did Barack Obama do? He won over a bunch of white voters in Iowa and proved that maybe it's not so crazy To think that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama could become president So part of this is realizing the biases that exist in the electorate and then and then putting together a strategy To overcome those biases and prove yourself unfair is it may be it is the world that we live Yeah, and what makes it more unfair? And this is where it played in 2020 is there's a lot of the campaign that ever happens before you get to Actual voters. Yeah, and so it's like you need money. You need attention and when people like It is there was a Elizabeth Warren was at the top of the polls and so there was a New York Times story about how Elizabeth Warren probably couldn't beat Trump And if she really tanked after that Because the hyper engaged Democrats particularly wants an Iowa New Hampshire. We're like, oh wait, we love Elizabeth Warren We like her policies, but she probably can't beat Trump Well, then we 6 and 10 of us would prefer to have someone who could beat Trump and this is going this is going to Absolutely shade a lot of the discourse going into 2028. Yeah, particularly because we have lost to Donald Trump two times now Yep, you know, and so like you know unfairly or not It's going to be a huge part of it. It's going to be it's going to be I think hard for a lot of these candidates to overcome it But you know stranger things have happened Barack Obama became president Hot Dave America is brought to by a G1 this summer winds down Routine start taking over again before the daily chaos creeps back in set the foundation with a G1 one scoop eight ounces of cold water every morning The easiest non-negotiable to put back on your calendar A G1 is a daily health drink with a multivitamin pre and probiotics super foods and antioxidants just one scoop daily Means you'll get high-quality nutritional support every single day no matter when or where you start your morning A G1 helps to maintain energy support gut health and support immune health the next gen formula delivers 75 plus ingredients Clinically shown to support gut health fill common nutrient gaps and improve key nutrient levels within three months A G1 is great. You just you know dump a little of that green powder into into some water in the morning or whatever your favorite Morning drink is and then boom you're drinking it you got all your vitamins and minerals and it tastes good Gotta get those vitamins in those minerals. What's a vital mineral? I don't know Then you don't have to exactly then you don't have to think about it. Don't have to think about it Break your age you get your age you want in that system Visit drinkag1.com/cricket and get a free AG1 flavor sampler and a free bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2 in your welcome kit With your first AG1 subscription order. That's a drink AG1.com/cricket The polls were off by a decent amount in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota for different reasons As the host of polar coaster You are therefore required to defend the switchcraft that you keep telling us will predict the future With near certainty Yes, that is as all listeners of polar coaster know that's what we say the polls are not a snapshot in time They are not an imprecise measure. They are perfect Sucing yeah, like I think if we look at these the polls were very wrong, but let's talk about what that means in this case One It's worth noting that primary polls are often quite wrong. Yeah, like they have a long history of being wrong That has become more true in this era where it becomes almost impossible to get anyone to take a poll because polling is now looks much more like election modeling where you're guessing what the electorate looks like In advance and then waiting your very random sample To match that and so if you guess the if you model the electorate wrong You're going to miss everything and That it's easier to model in a general election particularly now we've had a bunch of them in the Trump era Which is why the polls were more accurate in 2024 So but that's even harder in a primary. It's particularly hard in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota because those are open primary states Where independence and Republicans can vote It's one of the reasons that even it appears that the internal campaign polls were all wrong because in those states You can't even go off the voter file to poll Yeah, we're basically doing you're either these media polls So it's a relying on self-reported party ID and the campaigns are using modeled support where they sort of guess whether someone's Republican or Democrat, but you go into it. You have no idea how many independence are going to like they walk in to the to the voting booth and they pick a ballot They get to choose right there and so it's very hard to know It also seems very clear that in these states the pollsters oversampled Young voters and these young voters tend to be more progressive. They're the ones supporting Abdul and flan again and hung And that that's like that's a that's a misjudgment of how many people vote and they are undersampling Working class voters in particularly in Wisconsin and Michigan black voters and then the other thing I'd say is most of the polls that we saw were not high quality polls We don't have New York Times sienna polls of these races. Yeah, Marquette did pull it market is a highly really Pulse where they did pull in Wisconsin and we're wrong But their poll is actually more than a week old by the time the election happened and one things that we You know you we'd get a poll a week out and it says the race is tied and then one candidate wins by three Everyone says the poll is wrong It's like well, it's also possible addition of that just being the margin of error People change their mind undecided's move and in Wisconsin in particular It seems very clear that there was real movement at the end you had like in that And state navigated a poll that was like five days out that ended up being quite wrong But in that poll so you had nine percent of undecided voters So all those voters seem to have gone to Crowley you had a bunch of other candidates in the field Who's including two in Mandela bars and several regas who had dropped out of the race And they had supporters and some of those supporters went to David Crowley and so with what poll like we have a poll she hit her for in Chescahung Was basically pulling around 40% which is what she got And like in some of these polls she was over it. She was four or five points over 40 But yes, it basically got her her within a reasonable polling error Right, they got her number and what happened is Everything else moved towards Crowley and And he like he had momentum. She was struggling down the stretch He spent four million dollars like in the last week Week 10 days or so on broadcast in linear television, which I think made a huge difference And so we have to remember that people changed their minds vote undecided voters decide And that is what affects the final margin and that It's certainly a huge factor in what happened at least in Wisconsin probably to some extent Michigan as well Minnesota is a little more confusing to me because and that one The polls towards the end showed it kind of close and then instead penny flit piggy flan again the more progressive candidate One by 20 points. So they underestimated the more progressive candidate in Minnesota Yeah, those polls might just been wrong. It just goes to show you I think that like it's it's a number of different factors and it's like I wouldn't think to ourselves as we go into the midterms and you tell me if I'm wrong that like oh no They're always going to over sample younger voters and the polls are all going to be off because that didn't happen in Minnesota It hasn't happened in other places. It's possible. It's also worth remembering that in 2025 they Poles in New Jersey and wisk and Virginia were off They were very far off in New Jersey and they undersampled Democrats in that case or over sample Republicans And it's going to be interesting. This is the I mean, we're getting super nerdy here, but they're In they were wrong in 16 the polls were right in 2018 2018 per hey like a normal midterm because all these low-engaged Trump voters did not turn out in that one 2020 they were incredibly wrong 2022 they were actually quite right every no one believes that because everyone thought their red wave is coming But the polls were historically accurate in that race and then in 2024 the polls were right again but the pollsters for the most part, there are some exceptions in Nate Cohen of the times included, but they used basically like a statistical sledgehammer to jam more Trump voters into the polls, which worked. How they're gonna factor in and model Republican turnout in this election and how they're gonna try to accommodate. Like what is the baseline? Are you, if you do it, what are you waiting? They waited, basically in 2024, they waited the poll to the 2020 vote share. I don't know how they're gonna do this here. It's gonna be very interesting to see. - I should probably bring this up since it's sort of breaking here as we're talking, but Fox News released two Senate polls, Michigan. Mike Rogers 51, Abdul 47. And then Sherrod and Ohio is up by the same as he was last time, which is 53.45. I don't know if I buy either of those still in the truth. - I mean, Sherrod Brown is not winning Ohio by eight. - Yeah, that'd be a 19 point over performance in 2024. - That to me seems further off than the. - Yeah, I would say that both of those races end up being closer. - Closer and like two point races. I think there's a world where Abdul could win by four or five. I find it highly unlikely that Mike Rogers could win by that much. - Yeah. - But I think there's work for Abdul to do. I think he has real work to do. And like he, in all of the polling, even the ones that showed him doing the same as Haley Stevens against Mike Rogers, he was dramatically underperforming the political environment. It should be, this is it, Michigan is 50/50 state. It should be, he should be starting with six points in his pocket. - Right, because yeah, so everyone knows even though Michigan's closed, if the national environment is six points more favorable to Democrats than it was in 2024, then yeah, that's how you get that. Speaking of election forecasts, that promise 100% accuracy, Nate Silver dropped his midterm model this week called forecast with leading indicators, polls, and expert ratings, or flipper for sure. You wanna call it flipper. So Nate's forecasts have historically been closer to the mark than I think most other models. He's not known as someone who's biased towards Democrats or Republicans in his modeling. But it is notable that he gives Democrats as of this recording an 86.1% chance of winning the house. And I said as of this recording, 56% chance of winning the Senate, but I bet once he throws in that Michigan poll, that might go down a little bit. - Yeah, the Fox is an a-rated poll, and so that will bring that down somewhat. - And since it just came out, I'm sure he hasn't updated it yet, but by the time you listen to this, it will be updated. What do you think of Nate's forecast, and what should people know about what goes into that besides just polling? 'Cause I think some people probably just assume that it's a polling aggregator where you just throw in a bunch of polls together and averaging them out, which it's not. - Yes, for a long time, the real clear politics polling average was what everyone followed, and that really was just math where they added all the polls together and then divided by the number of polls at the average as if they were in fifth grade math. What Nate does, in others like Laxajaine do that's much more complicated, is they build a statistical model that takes in polling. They then Nate at least waits the pollsters based on quality of the poll. He actually has it in the past, I don't know if he's doing this in the case is established, it calls a house bias that some pollsters over time are tend to be more democratic or more Republican, and then he will factor in that house bias into it. He will also includes fundamentals, like how much money the campaigns have raised, the larger political environment, there is a benefit to encompassing in these races and fits that in. And then this time actually, he has three versions of his model, the deluxe model, if you will, actually factors in the expert ratings from political report and others. It's interesting too, if you read his methodology page, because the polls have been so wrong, he's over-weighting towards fundamentals this time, or he's putting more weight on fundamentals than he has in the past, which is interesting. And I'm going to be very, very interested to see what the Michigan poll, which by the time you guys are listening to this, you may be able to go to his site and check it out, but how that changes, because if I recall correctly, I think maybe this was like a shame, but I don't want to smear him with cases that was in incorrect take. But basically, in some people's model, that if Democrats chances of winning the house, the Senate are, let's say they're 57 or whatever it is, if they lose Michigan, that number drops to the, like the 30s. - Yeah. - So that if Michigan is a, you really need Michigan to take the Senate, and if we are a poll that shows us losing Michigan badly, we'll probably move the Senate forecast a little bit, at least. - I also think the Senate forecast started even higher than 56% and it went down to 56 today, because there's an M in on the front. - Yeah, there was an Emerson poll that shows-- - In Texas. - Telerico, down one in Texas. - I'll tell you what though, that poll shows Telerico is 70% of the black vote. And if he is down one with 70% of the black vote in Texas, then he is going to be, he's gonna win by fair amount. - I wish I think that is a bad, probably not enough voter stuff should have it, but he's gonna get a lot more than 70% of the black vote. - Now, we're not in the prediction business, and we always warn you about these things. So what good is an election forecast for all of you? I do think that one of the more interesting parts of Nate's forecast, Nate's model is, for the House races, they show you like, what are the closest House races in the country? And that list can update. And I think if you're wanna volunteer, if you wanna donate money, it is kind of helpful to look and see the closest House races, the closest Senate races, and then you go to votes of America, and we can make sure you're connected with the right people, so you can have something to do and someplace to donate. So I do think that is very helpful to have like what races are the closest and to kind of see it updating over time. - It is emotional management for most people. They were going to live and die with several point drops in the forecast. - Yeah, yeah, don't do that, 'cause it's gonna be quite a polar coaster, if you will, from now until November. All right, last thing before we go, White House Press Secretary Caroline Loveit announced on Wednesday that she's leaving her post at the end of the month to quote embark on a new chapter and spend more time with her kids. She will, of course, be missed and as former White House Com staffers, we thought it only fitting to say farewell with a tribute to some of her finest moments. - She's become a star. It's that face, it's that brain, it's those lips, they way they move, they move like she's a machine gun. - Hey, Trin has no place in the United States of America under President Donald Trump. - The president has been spotted out and about a number of times with bandages on his hands, because he's explaining what that is about. The president is literally constantly shaking hands. Why was Renee good, unfortunately, and tragically killed? - Are you asking me, my friend? - Because a nice agent acted recklessly until we don't have to fire her. - Oh, okay, so you're a biased reporter with a left-wing opinion. - What are you wanting to do? - Yeah, because you're a left-wing hack. The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the United States, was going to strike our assets in the region. At this moment in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president's main priority. He believes that Canadians would benefit greatly from becoming the 51st state of the United States of America. It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. - 'Cause it was 2011, when Barack Obama and Seth Meier said you'll never be President Wapiti Bob. Here we are, with President Trump going on stage as a two-term president. - For the first time, this speech tonight will be classic Donald J. Trump. It'll be funny, it'll be entertaining. There will be some shots fired tonight, no? - Oh! - Very, you know, just North Korean propaganda through and through. - Yeah, it's Baghdad Bob. - Yeah, at the same time. - I love the, he does believe that Canadians will benefit from being the 51st state, just said with a straight face. - Which was a thing that actually happened in American politics. - Yeah, well, Kudos to her for saying that all with a straight face. As for who might replace Levit at the podium, names are already being floated all across the mega-media ecosystem. Lots of exciting possibilities and it's a wide open field. So each of us, without sharing with each other yet, has ranked our top five most likely picks. So why don't we, I think we should each go five, five, four, four, three, three, and then we'll get to that. - Okay, that's what I was hoping for. - Okay, okay. - I really kind of missed that the punch line of mine, but we'll do it this way. - Okay, that's fine. You want to go for who's your number five? Who's your number five? - Number five is Marco Rubio. (laughing) - That's funny, that's funny. I already saw some of the Rubio and the couch memes where he's got a blonde wig on, so yeah. - Yeah. - The internet. - I use this. - Now, my number five, Erica Kirk. - Now that is an interesting suggestion. - You think it's crazy, but you're like, wait a minute. She's, you know, she's, there's a lot of public speaking. Big, you know, big favorite of the mega world. Who knows? Number four. - So, before I gave number four, I would like to just point out my thinking here, which is down to Trump has had five press secretaries. Can you name all five? - Wow, 'cause we have to go back to the first term, huh? - Yeah. - I can do it for you. - Sean Spicer. - K.L. McEnany. - That's funny. - Yep. - Oh, what's his name? Scaramucci. - Never press secretary. - He wasn't for 14 days. - He's a communication structure. - Oh, he didn't step in for the, oh yeah. - No. - Oh. - He might need some breathing. - How could be Sanders? - Yep. - Caroline LeBert. - And so now I'm just one, I have one, right, that I'm missing. - Stephanie Grisham. - Oh, Stephanie Grisham. - Yes. - Okay, okay. - So, five press secretaries. The last four have been women. - Mm-hmm. - I don't think Donald Trump's gonna pick a man. - I don't either. - So, my number four is- - Although I have one man on my list. - I did too, obviously. But my number four is Anna Kelly, who's currently the deputy press secretary. - You know, I keep seeing that around, but it's like, I feel like he always wants to go for someone who has been on TV a bunch. - He's also lazy, so- - Yeah, that's true. - He's a man so lazy, he wouldn't even pick a new Nash Secure Advisor. - Yeah. - So, that's true. - That would be the, that's the lazy rat. I don't think it's obviously what I, not what I think is most likely, but I think it's on the table. - My number four is, my favorite in yours, Trisha McLaughlin. - Oh. - God, that's definitely not happening, but that is a good suggestion for content purposes. You don't think it's, I think, well, I did read somewhere that she might be pregnant, so that would be tricky, at least if it's happening soon. I don't know how pregnant she is, or what, but like, but I could see, I mean, she was clearly auditioning for White House press secretary, her entire time at DHS, and she has not taken a new job yet. - Okay, it's on the table. - All right, my number three, Kerry Lake. - Yeah, Kerry Lake is, it's a possibility. - Trump loves her. - Trump loves her. - She's a loyalist. - She is crazy. - She's crazy. - She'll fight with the press, which is what he cares about most. She's very, she's a former reporter. She's good on TV, in a Trumpian way. She's good on TV. - Right, right. - Yeah, I thought about her, and I was like, as she, you know, Trump likes his spokespeople, like young, like Fox News anchors. - Yeah, it's this would be- - That's the only thing that- - Well, my number three, same thing, which is a departure from this, which is Scott Jennings. - Interesting. - See, I was thought about Scott Jennings, but then I went with my whole man thing, and then I had to do a very cheesy and funny Rubio joke. - I would not put the money on Scott Jennings, but I put him on my list because I- - 'Cause we are bidding all of these on Kalshi, right? - That's, yes, of course. - Yes, obviously. - As we do with everything. - Okay. - My number two, Katie Miller. - So, I was gonna have Katie Miller on there, and then I of course did some research for this segment, and in one of the political stories about the search, a source close to Miller said, not happening. Absolutely not. - That's exactly- - You think that's what Katie Miller's word? Yes. - Maybe, what was she- - She has a wildly successful podcast. - What's she gonna do with that? - Maybe she just do the podcast in the briefing room. - Yeah, that's probably good. - She likes attention. She's very combative. - Yeah, I mean, she would, yeah, I could see it. - No. - What I have, is it on my number two? - No one. - Just doesn't fill the role. Continuous to have a bunch of dipshits, jump into the briefing room once in a while, and says, fuck it, I don't even want the press. I don't wanna deal with that. He's the press secretary here. - Yeah, I thought about putting that on my list too, and then I thought that was maybe like a little- - A little too, trying too hard for a viral clip, if you will. - What, that no one- - If I said Trump, if I- - Oh, Trump. - I never won choices, Donald Trump. - Yeah, that is a little bit much. - Yeah, no, that is a bit much. - I think he really cares about the briefing. - He wants to watch something. He's gonna watch something. - It is a law on the Fox schedule during the day. I think he does not watch Wilcane, so usually the briefing is during Wilcane, and so that solves that problem for him. - Wilcane. - To dumb. - Yeah. - All right, number one. - Number one, this is a totally out of left field. It's a crazy choice. Rachel, Campos, Duffy. She's on Kalshi, but she fell, she started it like 40%, like, I don't know how they got there. I think it was like 40% or something, and then she's like falling down to less than 1%. - Yeah, I think, I'm not sure the people who are betting Kalshi, what we have to watch for is if all of a sudden there is a surge behind one person. - Yeah. - That's the only thing you can trust. She's a Fox News anchor, she's reality TV star. In the family, in the family, loyal, Trump likes her a lot. He talks about her a lot. Back before Sean Duffy was in the cab that he used to tweet in truth about her all the time. - Big fan of hers. - Oh. - I could see that. - She was on my list. - Yeah, I should have kept her on my list. - I have Alina Habba. - That's, yeah. - I knew she was the favorite right now. - I knew in my soul you were going to pick Alina Habba first, and so for content purposes, I took Alina Habba off my list. - I know, I almost didn't want her first 'cause I was like, I think it's more boring as this selection, but I actually think if we're just doing most likely, I would put money on that. - Yeah. - So you were taking this as a serious game? - Yeah, of course. - Yeah, okay. - Just like I did. - I was terminally online, you know? - I was doing this for totally content purposes. - Of course, of course. - Yes, of course. - Yes. - Well, good luck to everyone on our list. And hopefully, it was good to do some outside of the box ones that are not on Kalshi like Eric Kirk and Tishabah Glouffin because maybe if we say them, you know, the MAGA, the MAGAverse listens to us. So we just, if we put it out there, maybe we can build some buzz behind these things. - If you are listening to positive America, and then you think that we said something about who Trump might hire as his press secretary, and then you went and put money on that, get help. (laughing) - Well, that might describe Elijah. (laughing) - Well, I mean, he's so far behind, I can help. (laughing) - I can hear us still laughing. All right, Dan, well, that's our show for today. Tommy will be back on the feed on Sunday with a conversation with tech journalist Casey Newton about the terrifying AI moment we're in. Exciting. And what we can do about it. Casey's awesome. That's gonna be a great conversation. And then John and Tommy and I will be back with a new episode on Tuesday. Have a good weekend, everyone. - Bye, everyone. - Positive America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari with Reed Charlene, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Heffcoat, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Carol Pellevive, David Tolls, Mia Kalman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is probably unionized with the writer's Guild of America East. (upbeat music)